What on earth does...

[NotIndPk]

"finishing through your parry" mean?

In foil fencing, a respected National referee answered a fencers complaint about a series of calls, where the referee conceded that the complainant had parried (hence the "your parry") but the attacker had finished through it and hence touch to the attacker.

There is obviously something more to it then just the statement - the complainant should have asked something like "....but if I parried does that not take away the attack?" am I right or should I switch to tiddlywinks?

[noodle]

the only things i can think of is that the parry was not in time or the parry was insufficient.

[keith]

There is obviously something more to it then just the statement - the complainant should have asked something like "....but if I parried does that not take away the attack?" am I right or should I switch to tiddlywinks?

only if your parry is followed by an immediate riposte. If you parry, have a cup of tea, and then riposte the opponents remise will be in time. Which I guess is what is meant here.

I have always been under the impression that, in foil, you either parry or you do not - there is no such thing as an insufficient parry.

[erooMynohtnA]

It depends. If you tap their blade with a beat parry, it really doesn't matter how much you deflected it. Some people might argue that you really do have to move the blade in theory, but in practice, it doesn't matter.

Some ceding parries in foil get called mal parre, but it's pretty hard to get that call. It basically looks like "attack is parried, no riposte in time, then the remise." Only it's "attack arrives while you held your hand in a position that didn't actually deflect the blade but there was some contact"

[KD5MDK]

If the remise landed before the riposte began, it's probably what they were talking about.

[NotIndPk]

only if your parry is followed by an immediate riposte. If you parry, have a cup of tea, and .

....ha...ha...ha. I would have said something like that. Well done.

I agree: either ye parried or ye did not. There is a very famous NJ referee who was guilty of making a determination of parry not being "strong enough". USFA/FIE rules do not allow the use of a torque meter attached to a foil so what the hell does "strong enough" mean........

Me thinks that the riposte was not in time seems like a sensible explanation....does this mean though, that the parry took row away from the attacker, but during the tea break, row reverted to the attacker and thus the attacker finished before the parrier could tuck his pinky in to finish his riposte that is why"finish through your parry" is valid? If true, foil refereeing is for the birds - how can you be so flinty-eyed as to determine that the attacker finished before the riposte landed?

Aye, give me my cup of tea, black and thick....this is giving me a headache.

[keith]

Me thinks that the riposte was not in time seems like a sensible explanation....does this mean though, that the parry took row away from the attacker, but during the tea break, row reverted to the attacker and thus the attacker finished before the parrier could tuck his pinky in to finish his riposte that is why"finish through your parry" is valid?

Yes.

A parry does not take RoW - it ends RoW for the attacker. What takes RoW is the initiation of the riposte. So if there is a parry and two subsequent simple actions that hit - convention dictates that RoW lies with fencer who parried. If there is a parry and then only an action by the attacker then that action has RoW (assuming the defender wakes up in time to turn on their other light).

[jkdjeff]

A parry does not take RoW - it ends RoW for the attacker. What takes RoW is the initiation of the riposte.

Wow, thank you for this. This was a really elegant way to describe that, and helped turn a lightbulb on in my head.

[noodle]

It depends. If you tap their blade with a beat parry, it really doesn't matter how much you deflected it. Some people might argue that you really do have to move the blade in theory, but in practice, it doesn't matter.

i won't name names but i've had a high level foil ref describe to me the exact action and tell me my parry was of insufficient force, despite him seeing and hearing the contact with the correct intent. i laughed at him.

[peet]

does this mean though, that the parry took row away from the attacker, but during the tea break, row reverted to the attacker and thus the attacker finished before the parrier could tuck his pinky in to finish his riposte that is why"finish through your parry" is valid? If true, foil refereeing is for the birds - how can you be so flinty-eyed as to determine that the attacker finished before the riposte landed?

Small but important clarification:
Priority reverted to the attacker's remise when the parrier failed to tuck in his pinky in time to start his riposte. Not finish his riposte. To be valid, the remise must arrive before the riposte begins. If you are still clearly parrying (as it sounds in the OP) while the remise hits you, then the ref may fairly decide that you did not begin your riposte before the remise arrived.


-p

[jBirch]

Yes.

A parry does not take RoW - it ends RoW for the attacker. What takes RoW is the initiation of the riposte. So if there is a parry and two subsequent simple actions that hit - convention dictates that RoW lies with fencer who parried. If there is a parry and then only an action by the attacker then that action has RoW (assuming the defender wakes up in time to turn on their other light).

*sigh*

We've had this conversation before Keith and this interpretation is wrong because it leads to the following erroneous call:

Attack, Parry. Simultaneous extension.

1) Double touch?

RoW is more nuanced then that and you know it. RoW is a hierarchy of terms. Parry stops the attack, but doesn't stop the phrase. It changes the attack into a continuation which can be beaten by either a counter-attack or a riposte. And the concept of the phrase d'armes is important to the detemination of RoW.

It's impossible to get two lights and not have started your riposte before the remise arrived.

As to the original question, mal parre is fashionable in sabre but not in foil. It is, however, making a comeback in many foil circles. Traditionally (meaning in the last 10 years or so), any contact of the blades in foil was considered to be sufficient for a parry or a beat, depending upon who initiated the contact. It was extremely rare to hear a call of "mal parre" or "insufficient attack" during a foil bout.

Lately, however, the concept of a glise (or a graze) has become a little bit more en vogue with the fencer requiring a noticible movement of the opposing foil to get a call of parry or beat.

Depending upon how irritating you want to get, you could appeal consistent calls of mal parre in foil to the DT and likely you'll get them called parry/riposte in the future. However, like strikes in baseball, determinations of fact are the responsibility of the ref. If they say attack,parry, remise then that's the call that stands.

As a side note, if the ref acknowledges the parry, then it is determined to be sufficent. The only thing that would stop it from being a riposte would be if you significantly hesitated on the riposte. In which case, the call is attack, parry, no riposte, remise.

Hope this helps.

[catwood1]

"finishing through your parry" mean?

In foil fencing, a respected National referee answered a fencers complaint about a series of calls, where the referee conceded that the complainant had parried (hence the "your parry") but the attacker had finished through it and hence touch to the attacker.

There is obviously something more to it then just the statement - the complainant should have asked something like "....but if I parried does that not take away the attack?" am I right or should I switch to tiddlywinks?

I'd say your opponent is finishing through the parry if he hits your while you are still parrying.

If you take a counter 6 half and while you are taking his blade, he hits you, then you continue taking his blade and hit him, he finished through your parry. He hit you while you are parrying, and before your riposte began.

[Joe biebel]

I'd say your opponent is finishing through the parry if he hits your while you are still parrying.

If you take a counter 6 half and while you are taking his blade, he hits you, then you continue taking his blade and hit him, he finished through your parry. He hit you while you are parrying, and before your riposte began.

I'd agree with Catwood here, except that I would actually say "Attack arrives".

[catwood1]

I'd agree with Catwood here, except that I would actually say "Attack arrives".

If I recall, in the event the OP is refering to, the ref called "attack arrives." Then the fencer says he parried, and the ref responds saying that he finishes through the parry. The ref called attack arrives, and only uses the other phrase in responding to the argument.

I could be wrong though...

[KD5MDK]

I think "Attack, parry, no immediate riposte, remise arrives" would be clearer.

[keropie]

It's impossible to get two lights and not have started your riposte before the remise arrived.

I absolutely don't buy this. I've even seen it happen.

The rest of it I more or less agree with. Though I agree with the statement that was refuted with one addition: if the original action is parried, and the phrase ends, then the parry is no longer relevant. If the original action is parried, however, and two simple actions begin (one by each opponent) and both hit, the action from the fencer who parries is (in all likelihood) correct.

[jBirch]

I absolutely don't buy this. I've even seen it happen.

I don't buy your not buying it! *grin*

Seriously though, I can't conceive of a situation where two lights go off and the riposte didn't start before the remise FINISHED. At some point, the tip has to go from parry to target or else you wouldn't have two lights.

Could you describe the situation you've seen?

[seak]

remise hits, riposte starts, riposte hits, two lights go off

really the lock out time in foil is not that short (and that's a good thing!)

[KD5MDK]

I don't buy your not buying it! *grin*

Seriously though, I can't conceive of a situation where two lights go off and the riposte didn't start before the remise FINISHED. At some point, the tip has to go from parry to target or else you wouldn't have two lights.

Could you describe the situation you've seen?

Old timings foil?

[downunder]

where is the requirement that the riposte has to start before the remise hits?